4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Syrotyne, Ukraine.
5.  The applicant worked at “Obyednannya Azot” (Сєверодонецьке державне виробниче підприємство «Об’єднання Азот»), a State chemical company, from 1978. According to the applicant, in December 2000 – January 2001 he was diagnosed as having chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (хронічний лімфолейкоз), a blood cancer. On 26 June 2001 the diagnosis was reaffirmed by a medical expert and he was recognised as having a work-related illness.
6.  In June 2001 the applicant was dismissed because of his absence from work. The applicant alleged that the real reason for his dismissal was his attempts to establish a casual link between his illness and work.
7.  In July 2001 an internal investigation relating to the applicant’s illness was held. A report of 16 July 2001 revealed a number of shortcomings on the part of the employer, including a disregard for minimum work safety conditions, which had led to the applicant’s illness.
8.  The applicant is now in the final stages of the disease.
9.  In January 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Severodonetsk Town Court against “Obyednannya Azot” challenging the reason for his dismissal and seeking compensation for his work-related illness.
10.  Shortly after that, on 31 January 2002, the local department of the State Social Security Fund (Сєверодонецьке відділення виконавчої дирекції Фонду соціального страхування від нещасних випадків на виробництві і професійних захворювань) was joined to the applicant’s case as a co-defendant.
11.  On 2 April 2002 the court split the dismissal claim against “Obyednannya Azot” and the compensation claim against “Obyednannya Azot” and the State Social Security Fund (the “Fund”) into two separate sets of proceedings.
12.  On 29 May 2002 the court stayed the compensation proceedings pending the determination of the dismissal proceedings.
13.  On 23 December 2004 the Severodonetsk Town Court discontinued the dismissal proceedings as “Obyednannya Azot” and the applicant had reached a settlement.
14.  On 28 March 2005 the court went on to examine the compensation claim.
15.  On 20 July 2005 and 15 August 2006 the court ordered forensic medical and psychiatric examinations.
16.  According to the applicant, on 19 January 2007, in order to expedite examination of his case, he was required to relodge his claim against the Fund for compensation for his work-related illness in administrative proceedings (see paragraph 23 et seq.). He also requested the court to discontinue examination of his claim against the Fund in civil proceedings. At the same time, he made a fresh claim against “Obyednannya Azot”, seeking compensation for unlawful dismissal, and requested the court to continue the civil proceedings in his claim against “Obyednannya Azot” seeking compensation for his work-related illness. These requests were granted on the same day.
17.  On 20 April 2007 the Severodonetsk Town Court rejected the applicant’s claims against “Obyednannya Azot”.
18.  On 4 December 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and gave a new one. In particular, it found in part for the applicant and awarded him 1,500 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in compensation for unlawful dismissal; the claim for compensation for the applicant’s work-related illness was dismissed as unsubstantiated.
19.  On 15 February 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.
20.  On 12 June 2008 the State Bailiffs’ Service refused to institute enforcement proceedings as the writ of enforcement lacked the necessary information about the debtor.
21.  On 24 October 2008 it was concluded, following an internal investigation held by the superior officials of the State Bailiffs’ Service, that the above refusal was lawful.
22.  The judgment of 4 December 2007 is still, apparently, not enforced.
23.  On 19 January 2007 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in the Severodonetsk Town Court against the local department of the Fund seeking an amount in respect of insurance and compensation for non-pecuniary damage as a result of his work-related illness.
24.  On 19 June 2007 the court rejected the applicant’s claim.
25.  On 14 September 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 19 June 2007.
26.  The applicant appealed in cassation and the proceedings are still pending before the Higher Administrative Court.